I always saw it as the classical: why do you want a screwdriver to put the screw in place? The hammer should be good enough!
Well, sure, I guess you can pound a screw into things with a hammer but you're missing the point.
Well, sure, I guess you can pound a screw into things with a hammer but you're missing the point.
1) Methods with names that indicate the parameter types. 2) Method calls on objects to convert some internal struct data from one type to another. 3) Something I haven't thought of that doesn't involve losing a handle on your type.
So there is certainly a loss in convenience, but if you use the type system it can be just as safe as a functional language as far as I can tell. So, yeah, it isn't as intellectually elegant, but it also isn't really that hard to deal with.
The only way to write this kind of generic code in Go is to cast everything to `interface{}`, which can't be checked statically.
If you are still not convinced, one of the things you can do with generics is say "these two parameters have the same type". In Go the best you can do is say "these two parameters are subclasses of something", which is less precise.
You want to use different screws? You're on your own.